The Major Issue Involved in the Court Case - Essay Example

?LUCY vs. ZEHMER 196 Va. 493; 84 S.E.2d 516 Supreme Court of Virginia (1954 ment of the facts Complainants W.O. and J.C. Lucy, brothers, filed a case for specific performance of a contract. The respondents were the spouses A.H. and I.S. Zehmer, friends of W.O. Lucy, for 15 years. The subject of the contract was a tract of land owned by the Zehmers and known as the Ferguson farm, which Lucy alleged was sold to him for a consideration of $50,000, to W.O. Lucy. W.O. transferred half the interest on the alleged purchase to J.C. The instrument the Lucys were seeking to enforce stated: “We hereby agree to sell to W.O. Lucy the Ferguson Farm complete for $50,000, title satisfactory to buyer.” It was written by A.H. Zehmer, and was duly signed by both A.H. and I.S. Zehmer. The defense of A.H. Zehmer was that he considered the offer of Lucy to purchase Ferguson as a joke, and at the time they signed the document both of the respondents were drunk. Zehmer also stated that while he did write the document, to him it was more of a response to a dare, as he did not believe that Lucy could afford $50,000, something he outrightly told the latter. In fact, although Zehmer wrote the contract, he did not deliver it, but Lucy picked it up, read it and put it in his pocket. At this point, Lucy offered $5 earnest money to seal the contract, but realizing he was serious, Zehmer refused to accept the money and instead told Lucy that had no intentions to sell Ferguson. On the other hand, Lucy contended that the sale was a done deal. He argued that at no time did he believe Zehmer to be joking. When Zehmer mentioned that Lucy would not be able to afford his price, Lucy assured him that he could. This was the reason Lucy immediately thereafter asked the help of his brother who agreed to share interests in the purchase. The lower court decided that Lucy had not proven his right to specific performance, and the case was dismissed. The Lucys appealed this decision to the higher court, where this instant case was decided. 2. The major issue involved in the case The issue before the higher court is whether the respondent’s claim of intoxication and that he was merely joking are sufficient to invalidate a written contract. If the contract is invalidated, then no contract of sale exists. However, if the contract remains valid, then the Lucys are entitled to its specific performance. 3. The court's decision on those issues The Supreme Court of Virginia ruled that a valid contract had been created when the Zehmers set their signatures to the instrument, creating an obligation on either side to meet its terms as contained in the document. The claim of Zehmer that he was merely drunk, and at the same time only joking (i.e., did not really intend to sell), is not sufficient to invalidate the existing contract. The complainants are entitled to the specific performance of the contested contract. The decision of the lower court is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded. 4. The rationale the court used in reaching those decisions The Supreme Court decided that Zehmer’s contention that he did not really intend to offer his property for sale does not hold water. It is true that normally, the law of contracts requires that the parties to the contract mutually consented to it. However, given certain cases such as this one, it is not so important for the parties to mentally agree to the forming of the contract; what is important is that the acts and words of one of the parties convey the reasonable meaning of such intention to the other party, that is, that the parties appeared serious in their intent to transact (Patterson, p. 74). A binding contract of sale therefore existed between the two parties, whether or not the response of the Zehmers was serious or in jest, because one party (Lucy) made a serious offer, and took their response to be likewise a serious answer to his offer. “Intentions of the parties to a contract are determined by a reasonable interpretation of their manifest conduct and expression. Unexpressed subjective intent of one of the parties may not invalidate the contract. It is immaterial what may be the real but unexpressed state of his mind” (Thomson Delmar Learning, 2007). The court also ruled that being intoxicated is not a defense in this case, because Zehmer could still understand the nature and consequences of the document he signed (Taliaferro v. Emery, 124 Va. 674, 98 S.E. 627). Zehmer’s understanding had not been impaired to the point that his judgement was impaired. As proof, Zehmer made two versions of the contract – the first stating “I hereby agree to sell” which was subsequently modified to “We hereby agree to sell,” as testified by his wife. This is evidence that he knew the contract he was entering into, and even exercised meticulous judgment in perfecting its wordings. The court also noted that the purchase price was $50,000, which is a fair value above the original $11,000 paid for it by the Zehmers when they bought it, even including the tax assessment of $6,300. Thus the price was not an unconscionable amount, but represented a true and fair value for the subject of sale. Furthermore, the manner in which the two parties arrived at while they were drinking exhibited a deliberate and serious intention to transact. 5. Critique of the court's rationale In my reading of the case, I would tend to agree with the Court and its rationale. In this case, one must decide between two scenarios: one, that Zehmer was too drunk his judgment was impaired, therefore he wrote and signed the contract to ridicule his friend Lucy for not having the money for it; and the other, that Zehmer had exhibited the intention to sell and was taken at his word by Lucy, but only changed his mind later. Of the two, the second is more credible. The Court is particularly right in holding Zehmer to the reasonable significance attached to his actions, more than his alleged mental intention only to play a joke. In a transaction of sale such as this one, it is important for the external manifestations to be binding, otherwise there will be an underlying mistrust in the carrying out of transactions, a matter that would hamper the smooth flow of business. Contracts duly perfected should not be easily dismissed by the mere allegation of a lack of intent; this should be strictly construed against the respondent. As it was, during the creation of the contract, Zehmer manifested every intent, even revising the document several times, using legally descriptive phrases (i.e., “title satisfactory to buyer”) and asking his wife to sign. There was thus every appearance of serious intent and full discretion on his part. On the basis of that contract of sale, Lucy had taken steps to comply with his obligation, even asking his brother to participate, and making other preparations. These are consequences of the reliance on the contract executed by Zehmer, complete in form, for which Lucy should be entitled to reimbursement and damages if specific performance is not carried out. The law states that the terms contained in the written contract duly signed are accorded the presumption of validity, therefore any party (the respondent particularly) who alleges otherwise should have to overcome this presumption by more than just the mere allegation that he was joking. References Patterson, E.W. The Restatement of the Law of Contracts, vol. 1, issue 71, p. 74. (1933) (Reviewed in the Columbia Law Review, 1934). Thomson Delmar Learning. Lucy v. Zehmer, 196 Va. 493, 84 S.E.2d 516 (1954) Case Brief. Accessed 28 September 2011 from http://www.delmarlearning.com/.../ch11%20Lucy%20v%20Zehmer.ppt Case: Taliaferro v. Emery, 124 Va. 674, 98 S.E. 627 Read More